- Home Office’s intention to transfer some cross-Channel migrants to Rwanda is being contested by activists.
- High Court told ministers were aware of concerns about Rwanda’s human rights record.
- The government claims that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda will deter people from traveling over the English Channel.
The High Court has been informed that government reports, recommendations, and experts have frequently warned ministers about Rwanda’s subpar human rights record.
The Home Office’s intention to transfer some cross-Channel migrants to Rwanda is being contested by activists.
Before the High Court makes its decision, a second phase of the case is anticipated to take place in October.
Lawyers raised recurring instances of government worries about the nation in written submissions.
The home secretary and the government, including the Foreign Office and Downing Street, were “themselves aware of, and appear to have had substantial concerns, regarding Rwanda’s present and history human rights record,” according to information provided to the High Court.
“Those concerns were regularly expressed by public leaders,” the attorneys claimed.
They added: “That was precisely why Rwanda was initially disqualified as a potential partner in the planned migration scheme.” They said that the administration had frequently made public criticisms of Rwanda’s human rights record.
“These concerns identified within the UK government about Rwanda’s human rights record are not properly or accurately reflected in [government papers defending the scheme].”
“We make no bones about our contention that Rwanda is a one-party totalitarian regime that does not allow political dissent,” said Raza Husain QC, the lawyer for the migrants, in court. It is a regime that routinely jails, tortures, and kills people it perceives to be its political rivals.
“Police violence is used against people who protest or disagree with government orders, including refugees.
The challengers claimed in their papers that Priti Patel, the home secretary, had breached the law by neglecting to consider prior reports from the government’s own officers.
The plaintiffs contend that if she had given thought to those issues, “she would have seen the hazards involved in sending anyone to Rwanda.”
One of the biggest and most complicated challenges to government policy in history may be the five-day hearing.
The government claims that by sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, it will deter people from travelling over the English Channel.
The approach is intended to target individuals who enter the UK through what ministers refer to as “illegal, risky, or needless tactics,” such tiny boats or hiding in lorries, when they could have sought asylum in a safe nation, like France.
[embedpost slug=”un-report-accusing-china-of-serious-human-rights-violations/”]
